B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order of the State Commission allowing the complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant a Government Hospital purchased an EPBX system from the Appellants for Rs. 1,74,720/- on 20^th March, 1990. The system had one year warranty. Immediately after installation, several complaints of improper functioning of the system were reported which were repaired/rectified by the local dealer. This Electronic Exchange got burnt on 27/28.1.91. The appellants being approached repeatedly, finally responded on 7.3.91 that the damage to equipment was due to the frequent voltage fluctuations and damage has been caused because the Complainant did not install a C.V.T. (Constant Voltage Transformer) and repudiated any liability on the plea that warranty was to cover any manufacturing defect and not for loss on any other count. In these circumstances, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency and praying for installation of an new EPBX system or in the alternative refund the cost of the system Rs. 2,10,380/- with interest @ 24% p.a., general damages of Rs. 30,000/- and special damages of Rs. 50,000/-. The State Commission after hearing both the parties held the Appellant deficient in service and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,10,380/- along with interest @ 12% from 1.4.91 till payment and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. It is against this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. It as argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Rajeev Nehru that as per record and agreement they installed the system which was working well except for minor problems like dim voices or some disturbances which they attended to on urgent basis. It is his case that the system got burnt on account of voltage fluctuation about which they had been informing the Complainant regularly with a request that they should install C.V.T. Only for a short period the local dealer installed its own Voltage - Stablizer, but that was more as a bait to get the outstanding payment. This stablizer was removed on 9.10.90. This was neither part of the agreement nor was covered by terms of warranty. The latter covered only manufacturing defects. There is no evidence or proof that it got burnt on account of any manufacturing defect. In these circumstances, they have no liability to compensate the complainant. The State Commission has erred in its appreciation of material on record, hence its order need to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the Complainant, Ms. Aishwarya Bhule that the order of the State Commission is quite correct. This well reasoned order need not be interfere with.
5. After going through the material on record and arguments advanced by the parties, we find the main point relates to C.V.T. It is true that stablizer was not part of the purchase order but the fact borne out by the letter dated 8.5.90 written by the Appellant to the Respondent, clearly states.
3" Voltage fluctuations were frequent so Constant Voltage Transformer (CVT) was installed".
6. Nowhere it states that it is on temporary/stop gap basis. Even the letter dated 9.10.90 from the Appellant's dealer states that CVT is being removed as it has developed some defects. To now state that it was only a bait to get the outstanding amount from the Complainant shall have to be termed an unethical and unfair practice. The letter from the Appellant dated 15.6.91 addressed to the Complainant nails the lie wherein it is stated:
"Further as per your request for a suitable M.D.F. I feel the requirement is genuine and assure you to provide the same free of cost within 15-20 days." The State Commission has examined all these aspects at length and passed a well reasoned order and a finding that the appellant was deficient in rendering the service. The material reproduces by us above corroborates the same. We find no merits in the arguments advanced by the Appellant. This appeal is dismissed. However, we find that the State Commission was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which we delete. We also find the rate of interest awarded to be on the higher side, which we reduce to 9%. With these modifications, the order of the State Commission is upheld. No costs.
